Letters: Brown’s plan, family planning, park hunting, driving

Redevelopment on chopping block

As San Diego Councilman Kevin Faulconer (“It’s not the city’s job to bail out the state,” Dialog, Feb. 27) and others point out in the Dialog package on Gov. Jerry Brown’s call to end redevelopment, there is still more to be done for our community to reach its full potential.

Which is why I’m mystified state Sen. Christine Kehoe believes a state takeover of San Diego’s redevelopment funds makes any sense (“State’s dire situation must come first,” Dialog, Feb. 27). Redevelopment is one of the few government tools that actually works. It creates jobs, attracts private investment and generates additional tax revenue to help fund parks, libraries and other services, not just downtown, but throughout greater San Diego.

By her own admission, Kehoe tells us redevelopment has worked to better San Diego; then, in the next breath, she says it should be taken away.

California’s budget shortfall isn’t the fault of property taxes being used for redevelopment; it’s the result of years of fiscal mismanagement in Sacramento. As a taxpayer, I get a much better return on my money through local redevelopment than by sending it to Sacramento to get buried under a pile of legislative manure.

Other than Susan Tinsky pointing out potential effects on affordable housing should redevelopment end (“The process is critical to affordable housing,” Opinion, Feb. 27), the funding of education was the primary theme in discussing the proposal to eliminate funding for redevelopment agencies.

One point was that sometimes funding for redevelopment is shifted from its intended use. Can we assume that money that was targeted for redevelopment agencies would be directed to its new intended use, education? There are many projects and services on the chopping block when it comes to any attempt at balancing the budget, each hoping for an adequate piece of the pie, but nothing seems to pull at the heartstrings more than something which directly concerns “the children.”

There is no doubt that education is important. But rather than continuously trying to figure out how to funnel more money into education, maybe we should look at what they’re doing with 40 percent of the budget. -- Brian L. Shaw, Pacific Beach

A debate over rights, dignity

Jim Garlow’s commentary on family planning (“Should tax dollars finance family planning? No: Planned Parenthood misuses its funding,” Opinion, Feb. 26) is a rehash of discredited reports about the practices of Planned Parenthood and its use of federal funds. Worse, Garlow purports to support “rights and dignity” while pointedly denying the rights and dignity of American women.

Here’s a simple truth: A woman’s pregnancy is hers and hers alone. Whether she stays pregnant is her decision. Planned Parenthood exists for one simple purpose, to provide women with the information and medical care they need to either prepare for a healthy pregnancy or to prevent pregnancy, whichever is appropriate. And women will decide which they need and when.

Defunding Planned Parenthood saves no money and will undoubtedly increase unintended pregnancy and abortion. It is a cynical attempt to justify an ideological end. The loss of Planned Parenthood would deprive American women of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it’s an outrageous affront to their dignity as moral decision makers. -- David B. Preskill, San Diego